


Essays and Collected Works

by FalliciousPuns, VesperNexus



Category: The Spy Who Came in from the Cold - John Le Carré
Genre: Analysis, Critique, Essays, Gen, Meta
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2017-08-01
Updated: 2017-08-01
Packaged: 2018-12-09 19:00:37
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 2
Words: 1,787
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/11675151
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/FalliciousPuns/pseuds/FalliciousPuns, https://archiveofourown.org/users/VesperNexus/pseuds/VesperNexus
Summary: The complete unabridged anthology of essays centered around The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, by John le Carré'riveting'- The New York Times'gay'- VesperNexus'a true classic'- FalliciousPuns





	1. Resistance to Circus (1)

The East-German smiled slowly, slyly. Leamas could see spot of red where blood stained his teeth. “Hello Control.”

His voice. Leamas’ mouth felt dry, his tongue weighed his bitterness. Fiedler’s voice was not smooth, slithering lovingly around the shell of his ear. It was harsh, withered. Leamas knew what a voice roughened by torture sounded like.

Leamas could imagine Control smiling. “It’s been a long time.”

“Indeed,” Fiedler tilted his head. His messy locks shadowed his gaze, “perhaps not long enough.”

Control laughed suddenly, and he seemed to eat up all the stale air. Leamas could barely repress his shiver. “Perhaps too long.”

 

\---

 

Throughout the passage, the author characterizes Fiedler as loyal to his ideology through the sustained register of his dialogue in the face of the threat posed by the character Control and through contrasting diction which highlights the hardships he endures.

The author illustrates the drastic effects of torture when Leamas notices that "Fiedler’s voice was not smooth, slithering lovingly around the shell of his ear. It was harsh, withered. Leamas knew what a voice roughened by torture sounded like". In this line, the author contrasts the seductive nature of Fiedler'a voice, indicated by "smooth", "lovingly" and near the ear with the reality of what torture has done to him. "Roughened", "harsh" and "withered" invoke images of old age, as time erodes the attractiveness described with "smooth, slithering lovingly around the shell of his ear". This comparison with torture having the same effect as time illustrates the inevitability and futility of Fiedler's resistance. He cannot escape torture just as no one can escape time, thus the fact that he does resist, in contrast with torture's irresistability, highlights the sheer magnitude of Fiedler's loyalty to his beliefs since he is willing to resist. (UNSTOPPABLE FORCE MEETS IMMOVABLE OBJECT)

After being tortured, Fiedler puts on a brace face to illustrate that the Circus has not broken him. The author writes that Fiedler "smile(s) slowly, slyly", which portrays him as being in control of himself, smiling in the face of danger. "Slyly" indicates that Fiedler is actively hiding something from the Circus, which contrasts with the fact that he has been tortured to reveal his secrets. This contrast between the Circus' desire and Fiedler's actions underline the magnitude of his rebellion against his captors, highlighting his ideological loyalty. "Slowly" also portrays Fiedler's resistance, since it implies control over his own actions. His smile is not a quick accident, or a Freudian slip, rather it is drawn out like a taunt. Once again Fiedler's actions clash with the Circus' intents. They want to break him to make him unwillingly share his secrets whereas the author highlights Fiedler's willpower by showing his self control, in contrast further emphasizing Fiedler's resistance.

Fiedler also expresses this same self control while speaking to the director of the Circus, Control. Fiedler consistently keeps a polite tone as well as a semi formal register, such as "Indeed" and "perhaps not long enough". His greeting to Control is also casually polite, which contrasts against the harsh reality of his torture. In keeping his dialogue civilized, Fiedler is refusing to accept the conditions of his capture, refusing to play the trodden down victim. Fiedler's refusal to play by the Circus' rules therefore highlights his resistance towards them, emphasized by the fact that Control effectively represents the full might of the Circus, being its director.

The author emphasizes Control's power by writing that he "eat(s) up all the stale air", the act of consuming an entire room's worth dead air, controlling the environment, characterizes Control as having power over the elements themselves. The author also portrays the director as terrifying, making Leamas, a man who is on the same side as Control, almost unable to "repress his shiver". The author also leaves Control a mystery, increasing the fear around him. Leamas must "imagine Control smiling", further increasing the air of uncertainty that surrounds him, making him more intimidating, since fear is due to the unknown. That Fiedler would talk to Control with such obvious intent to resist emphasizes his loyalty to the GDR and communism.

 

 

 

 

 


	2. Resistance to Circus (2)

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> A rebuttal.

A critical analysis on the passage critique (FalliciousPuns, hereafter ‘FP’, born 2018) of the short, fan-inspired ‘Monster’ (2017.)

Based on the cold war classic by John Le Carre, ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Cold’, the short story extract can be identified as using the ancient textual form known as Fanfiction. Written in a post-modernist contemporary society, this extract foregrounds thematic concerns of torture, conviction, and futility.

When presented with this self-proclaimed and eloquently put ‘half-assed attempt to write the gay’, critic FP composed a detailed 581 word analysis (longer than their attention span and drier than their sense of humour) in response. This critical analysis will itself analyse the significant aspects of this personal analysis.

FP begins by summarising the brief plot of the intertext, ‘Throughout the passage…’ wherein their use of timeless diction evident in the forgoing of tense, underpins a lack of modality and frames the passage in its entirety. While this short introduction functions as an effective abstract, there are minor aspects littered throughout which disrupt the logical flow of the critic’s argument, such as the misspelling of characterisation (spelled ‘characterization’), and the generic reference to ‘sustained register’ wherein the register itself is not specified.

The first argument of the critique embodies FP contention of the original composer’s authorial intension, being to ‘illustrate the drastic effects of torture.’ While the provided analysis is sound, reinforced through the use of examples, ‘Leamas notices that "Fiedler’s voice was not smooth….’”, their integration of these should have been smoother. As opposed to confronting the intended audience with an entire line, and then analysing its different facets separately, ‘indicated by "smooth”’, and ‘"harsh" and "withered" invoke images…’ the critic should have alluded to the line’s multi-dimensional nature before slowly analysing each section in chronological order. Furthermore, there is some contention to be addressed in FP following assessment:

‘"Roughened", "harsh" and "withered" invoke images of old age, as time erodes the attractiveness described with "smooth, slithering lovingly around the shell of his ear".  This comparison with torture having the same effect as time illustrates the inevitability and futility of Fiedler's resistance.’

Arguably, while ‘withered’ functions as connotative of old age, ‘roughened’ and ‘harsh’ are more deliberately associated with the act of torture itself, and cannot be strictly claimed to evoke the contested imagery. Furthermore, the introduction of the notion of time ‘as time erodes the attractiveness…’ is sudden and jarring, as engagement with the temporal realm was not previously foreshadowed in the response. In this, ‘the attractiveness’ is an inherently generic explanation that lack the required specificity for such complex notions regarding both temporal and spatial paradigms. In saying this, however, FP has come to an agreeable conclusion in attesting, ‘torture having the same effect of time’ and this resulting in the ‘futility of Fiedler’s resistance.’ However, FP failed with mention the intended _parallel_ between torture and time, framing them as dialectical as opposed to functioning in tandem or in conjunction. Here, it must be acknowledged that torture itself, like the passing of time itself, may not result in the Fiedler’s loss of control. These forces must in fact work together.

Please note: the use of parenthesis and unnecessary capitalisation must be forgone from all analytical response as this diction is too colloquial.

The critic then commences to the second argument, which they begin with diction only indicating the passing of time, ‘After being tortured…’ This casual approach does not appropriately foreground the serious and morbid tone of the extract which ultimately results in Fiedler getting ‘rekt.’ Moreover, the critic contends that ‘Fiedler puts on a brace face…’ However, in analysing the piece, it can be ascertained that there are no mentiones of braces, or brace-like equipment, throughout the entire extract. FP has not provided appropriate proof to reinforce these findings. The rest of this argument is relatively sound; however attention must be drawn to the following line:

‘His smile is not a quick accident, or a Freudian slip, rather it is drawn out like a taunt.’

Mention of the ‘Freudian slip’, while effective, is not appropriately flesh out and explained. It must be noted that psychological diction and references must never be used in a conversational or throwaway manner. It is also significant to point of the critic ends this argument with another misspelling – emphasising (spelled ‘emphasizing.’)

The next paragraph is analytically sound. However, again, the critic has forgone grammatical aids in not hyphenating ‘self control’ and ‘semi formal’. This paragraph thus serves to be colloquial. The most important facet to draw from this particular argument, however, is that in contrasting both Fiedler and Control, FP has omitted to parallel them. In using parallel diction, evident in the cliched, ‘too long’ and ‘not long enough’, the intertext’s author has implicitly attempted to evince their similar characterisations and intellect. Finally, there is a single contention to be had against the following statement:

‘In keeping his dialogue civilized, Fiedler is refusing to accept the conditions of his capture, refusing to play the trodden down victim.’

The main issue with this contention is that Fiedler is not merely ‘keeping his dialogue civilised’, he is deliberately and satirically echoing English customs, therein offering an insightful critique into ‘backyard cricket’ (John Le Carre, 1963) hypocrisy. Furthermore, Fiedler is not ‘refusing to accept the conditions of his capture.’ From what the audience has seen from the extract so far, it is evident that Fiedler has fully acknowledged his place and his position among the circus, evinced in the use of ‘sly.’ As FP asserted, this does evince ‘self control’, and therefore is borne from Fiedler’s complete self-awareness.

Finally, the concluding argument focalises Control’s power. There is little to be contended here as the critic has successfully determined ‘The author also portrays Control as terrifying…’ There are only two disagreements to be voiced, the first evinced in the critic’s all-encompassing over-generalisation, ‘since fear is due to the unknown.’ This is inaccurate as it suggests the feeling of fear is confined solely to the unknown. The critic has not provided any philosophical or psychological discourse to support this statement. Secondly, their contention framing Fiedler’s intentions, ‘That Fiedler would talk to Control with such obvious intent to resist emphasi(s)es his loyalty to the GDR and communism,’ may also be seen as inaccurate. A far simpler explanation for Fiedler’s resistance is offered: he is a ‘lil shite.’

Conclusively, the critic FP has provided an interesting, if not terribly contentious, analysis of the short story extract. Ergo, from now on, FP is encouraged to avoid so openly challenging their elders, because not in my house you lil scum taco.

 

 


End file.
